A
text has circulated over the Internet, through which
there was an unsuccessful attempt to show that the
Patriarchate of Moscow has worldwide canonical jurisdiction.
In order to support this position or attempted perspective,
this text projects recent unecclesiastical theories,
which are political, primarily animated by ethnophyletism,
and which have no relation to Holy Scripture, although
there is an effort to refer to it, but instead contradict
the sacred cannons-decisions of the Ecumenical Synods
which, as known, are obligatory in terms of their
application by the local Orthodox Churches, in order
for these to be Orthodox. These positions also contradict
the ecclesiology and tradition of the Orthodox Church.

From
the outset, it may be said that even the title of
this text ("The Russian canonical territory")
is inappropriate from a canonical and ecclesiological
perspective. Nowhere in the sacred canons and in the
Orthodox patristic theology is the canonical jurisdiction
- "territory" defined with criteria which
are not ecclesiastical or spiritual but instead ethnophyletic,
political, cultural, linguistic, and so forth, which
betray, as it appears, a nostalgia for secular expansionist,
and imperialistic objectives characteristic of former
periods and circumstances.

Furthermore,
that which is formulated in the introduction of this
text, namely that only few people are suitable to
define the concept of "canonical territory"
signifies, if nothing else, at least ignorance. The
canonical territory and canonical jurisdiction of
each local Church, including that in Russia, are clearly
defined by the sacred canons and the decisions of
the Ecumenical Synods which are obligatory for everyone,
as well as by the ecclesiastical institutional decisions
of universal validity and authority. These are contained
in the Patriarchal and Synodical Tomes of the local
and greater synods presided over by the Ecumenical
Patriarch, through which the more recent local Churches
were proclaimed autocephalous or elevated to Patriarchates.

Also
from the outset, it must be understood and emphasized
that the Church was revealed in the world by God through
Jesus-Christ for the salvation of all people and the
world, irrespective of race, and not for the benefit
of ambitions or political and other objectives. The
Orthodox Church is one ; one, too, and common is the
Orthodox faith ; the same sacraments sanctify the
faithful in it ; the same sacred canons regulate the
affairs of its life and order. It is neither Russian
nor Greek nor Serb nor Romanian etc. but it is the
Orthodox Church in Russia, in Greece, in Serbia, in
Romania and so on. As for the boundaries of the local
Churches and the eparchies, these are geographical
and have been defined not by ethnophyletic, but by
administrative criteria which normally follow the
political administration (St. Photius) and by spiritual
criteria in order better to serve the shepherded people
of God in order for it to be led to salvation in Christ.
In addition, it must be clarified from the outset
and underlined that, in the sources and generally
prior to the 18th century, namely before the French
revolution, the concept of nation did not have the
ethnophyletic meaning attributed to it today. In classical
times and until the 18th century, the nation was primarily
defined by religion and not by race. Such was the
politico-religious theory of the Persians, of the
ancient Greeks, of the pagan Romans (Byzantines),
of the Hebrews (it is the same to this day), of the
Muslims. The last of these, Arabs and later Ottomans,
in occupying the Roman ("Byzantine") land
and namely according to religious communities and
not according to race, and the religious leaders were
ethnarchs of their communities. Thus the Ecumenical
Patriarch of Constantinople was until 1923 the ethnarch
of the Orthodox Nation within the Ottoman Empire,
irrespective of race, or language, or other Patriarchs,
Metropolitans, and local Bishops ; the Sultan-Caliph
was the ethnarch of the Muslims, irrespective of local
or other differences ; the Rabbis were the same for
the Jews, irrespective of particular races, and so
on. The ideas of the French revolution (1789) and
of the Enlightenment created a new political theory,
which ignored religion as a formative element in communities
and administrative units. Henceforth the nations were
formed on the basis of ethnophyletic criteria, which
were discovered of politically created with the consequences
that we know to this day (racial purging etc.). However,
for Christ and His Church "there is neither Jew
nor Greek ... for all of you are one in Christ Jesus"
(Gal. 3 : 28).

In
the above text being commented upon, there is mention
of "canonical territories." Yet those references
by way of examples from the Old and the New Testaments
bear no relation to the formation in the Church of
canonical administration and canonical jurisdiction,
or their ecclesiological and Eucharistic presuppositions.
For instance, that which is said that Abraham and
Lot, relatives and leaders of families, shared grazing
grounds in order to avoid disputation, or that the
allocation of land performed by Joshua among the tribes
of Israel, namely its families, constitute an Old
Testament type of canonical Christian Episcopal jurisdiction
cannot stand as arguments. Clearly, these examples
refer to a distribution of animal and agricultural
lands, namely to a regulation of matters pertaining
to circumstances of property for the produce and cultivation
of the land, and not to the shepherding of the reasonable
flock of God. Moreover, what is written, that "the
principle of canonical territory begins to be revealed
as an element of the Church founded by the Lord"
and that "the mission of the Disciples"
was separated into many categories based on ethnophyletistic
(sic !) differences which characterized the early
Church" do not correspond to the biblical, but
even more general historical reality. In this respect,
we also have in this text a projection of recent and
contemporary narrow ethnophyletistic political theories
back upon the early Church, where they were unknown.
On the contrary, Jesus-Christ, before His Ascension,
commanded all of the Apostles, Peter included : "
... go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father and the Son and the
Holy Spirit, teaching them to keep all that I have
commanded you..." (Matt. 28 : 19-20). The commandment
was given to all of the apostles without exception,
that they might make disciples "of all nations",
namely all people generally, without any boundaries
and restrictions. In this, the Apostles differ from
their successors, the Bishops, the apostolic office
from the Episcopal office. The Apostles preach and
celebrate the Divine Eucharist everywhere and to all,
but the Bishops, as the successors of the Apostles,
only do so in their particular and named, geographical
Diocese : Timothy in Ephesus, Titus in Crete, Polycarp
in Smyrna, Ignatius in Antioch and so on. Their flock
further includes Christians converted from Judaism
and those converted from the Gentiles, "for all
are one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3 : 28-29), "
... in the one Spirit all were baptized into one body
- Jews or Greeks, slaves or free - and we were made
to drink of one Spirit." (1Cor. 12: 13).

Paul
was, by preference, the Apostle to the Nations ; yet
wherever he went, no less did he preach first in the
Synagogue, and when he was not welcomed there, then
he turned to the Gentiles. Whereas Peter was, by preference,
the Apostle "for those circumcised," although
not exclusively. These are the canonical jurisdictions
during the apostolic and post-apostolic period, without
racial or other distinctions.

In
the early Church, each city had its own Bishop, the
President of the Eucharistic assembly and the person
responsible for the pastoral ministry in all its expressions.
Even small cities or regions had sees of Bishop, each
of whom exercised a particular Episcopal jurisdiction
dependent on the Bishop of the city. In fact, on account
of the persecutions, it was necessary to have the
presence of the Bishop in each place to unite the
people. And on account of the problematic conditions
and the problematic situations, it was also difficult
for the Church to define the boundaries of each Episcopal
territory where the Bishops were obligated to exercise
their jurisdiction. Thus confusions and conflicts
often arose in the ecclesiastical administration,
in the ordination of clergy, in the dependence of
presbyters on two Bishops, since many times there
were two Bishops in one and the same place. When the
persecutions of the Christian Church within the Roman
Empire ceased, the legal authority of the Church was
able to define with precision the boundaries within
which the Bishop could exercise the affairs of his
Episcopal power. This is how the canonical eparchial
Episcopal administration was shaped.

To
begin with, the first ecclesiastical communities were
established in the large cities of the Roman Empire,
with their own Bishops. Rapidly, however, Christianity
spread also to the smaller cities and areas where
the Bishop of the city, on which the smaller cities
depended politically, would send clergy to perform
the affairs of their ecclesiastical jurisdiction,
until permanent clergy settled also in these small
cities and local ecclesiastical communities were formed,
like the ones we know today, which in the canonical
sources are called "local" or "rural"
or "solitary see". Over many of these parishes,
there was a bishop who presided, and who depended
on the permanent Bishop of the city. This person was
called "chorepiscopos". All of these parishes
together comprised a small ecclesiastical territory,
which depended on the bishop of the local city, which
to this day is called eparchy or Episcopal eparchy,
and which only had geographical boundaries. This Bishop
also mediated for the spiritual communication of the
bishops of the eparchy with the Bishops of other Churches.
Consequently, it was natural for the Bishop of the
capital or Metropolis (the Metropolitan) to acquire
supremacy of honor and of coordinating values in relation
to the other Bishops of the eparchy. The term "metropolitan"
appears for the first time in the 4th canon of the
1st Ecumenical Synod ("the authority in matters
should be given in each eparchy to the Metropolitan").
The Metropolitan was also called "first"
or "acting leader" (of 34th Apostolic canon
; canon 23, 39, 59 and 98 of the Synod of Carthage
; canon 16, 19, 20 of the Synod of Antioch, etc.).

The
1st Ecumenical Synod (325) defined more precisely
the organizational affairs of the eparchy or metropolitanate,
conforming solely on a geographical level the eparchial
or metropolitan organization according to its administrative
and spiritual needs, as well as in accordance with
the political organizational structure.

In
his eparchy, the Bishop is entirely self-sufficient,
administering his Diocese by virtue of his own right
which is acquired during his ordination to a particular
diocese with geographical boundaries alone, and no
person can interfere in the internal matters of the
administration of the Diocese : "No Bishop should
dare to ordain outside of his own boundaries in the
cities or towns which do not lie in his jurisdiction.
If it is ascertained that this has occurred, without
the approval of those responsible for those cities
or towns, both he and those he has ordained are to
be defrocked" (35th Apostolic Canon). Further,
only the Bishop possesses and manages the archiepiscopal
authority in his diocese, and so for this reason it
is not possible for two bishops to have then see in
one and the same city : "There should not be
two bishops in the same city" (8th canon of the
1st Ecumenical Synod).

Consequently,
in accordance with the above, the head of the Church
in Moscow, as the Metropolitan Bishop of Moscow, but
also as Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, cannot
interfere or settle in dioceses outside his own diocese
(Moscow), or as Patriarch do so in Patriarchates and
other local Churches outside his own Patriarchate
on the basis of criteria or problems of language,
culture, ethnophyletic etc. which are unknown to Holy
Scripture and the early Church, the sacred canons
and the decisions of the Ecumenical Synods. If he
should desire to do such a thing, he would be committing
the canonical offense of "transgression"
into a foreign eparchy with canonical consequences
foreseen by the sacred canons : "No bishop should
dare to move from one eparchy to another, and to ordain
persons in the Church for the sake of ministerial
promotion, nor should he take others with him for
this purpose, unless he arrives at the written invitation
of both metropolitan and the Bishops who are with
him in the region through which he is traveling. If,
however, without invitation he proceeds in disorderly
fashion to the ordination of any, and creates a situation
in ecclesiastical affairs that are not proper to him,
then his acts are considered invalid, while he is
responsible for his disorder and unreasonable actions
for which he deserves to be punished with defrocking
by the holy synod" (13th canon of the Synod of
Antioch. Cf. also 35th Apostolic Canon, 22nd canon
of the Synod of Antioch. In Rallis-Potlis, Constitution
of the holy and sacred canons, vol. 3, and pp. 450-451).

During
the 4th and 5th centuries, the Metropolitans of the
large cities in the Roman Empire, which in modem times
is called Byzantine Empire, namely the Metropolitans
of the capital administrative cities, acquired even
greater power and the significant ecclesiastical matters
were dealt with in these cities. The Metropolitans
of the five most important cities in the Christian
world were named Patriarchates, and the Metropolitans
of the smaller cities in time lost their self-sufficiency
while retaining their former titles, just as their
Metropolitanates retained theirs. The significant
matters of their ecclesiastical territory were now
determined by the Patriarchal Synods, which also elected
the Metropolitans who were ordained by the Patriarchs.

The
Patriarchal Synods, under the presidency of the Patriarch,
were originally constituted by the Metropolitans,
and later by the Bishops of the Patriarchal territory.
The eparchial metropolitan Episcopal synods under
the presidency of the Metropolitans were preserved
and determined the eparchial matters, while lying
under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchal synod and
lying, as the Metropolitans themselves, and depending
canonically on the Patriarchs and the synods around
these, in which they also participated. The boundaries
of the Patriarchates are geographical alone and not
ethnophyletic, "cultural" or otherwise.
They have been defined by the Ecumenical Synods through
the sacred canons and ecclesiastical constitutions
according to Christian doctrine, Orthodox ecclesiology,
and Canon Law.

The
6th canon of the 1st Ecumenical Synod as well as later
canons seek to "maintain the ancient customs",
namely the conformation of the geographical boundaries
of the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria, the
Bishop of Antioch, and the Bishop of Rome. "The
ancient customs should be maintained, those in Egypt
and Libya and Pentapolis, so that the Bishop in Alexandria
should have authority over all of these, for this
is customary also for the Bishop in Rome. Similarly,
the primacy as it is observed in Alexandria should
be preserved also in the other eparchies...."
Thus, the Bishop of Alexandria "has authority
over those eparchies in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis,"
of Africa in general, " the Bishop of Antioch
likewise, of Syria, of Koile in Syria, of Mesopotamia,
and of each side of Cilicia (perhaps Sicilia ?) ..."
namely of the administration of the East, "and
the Bishop of Rome has authority over the Western
Eparchies". *[[Commentary by Balsamon on the
6th canon of the 1st Ecumenical Synod. Cf. Rallis-Potlis,
vol. 2, and p129. ]]

The
Bishop of Jerusalem, on account of the sacredness
of the city, was elevated to Patriarch by the 4th
Ecumenical Synod, and extends his canonical jurisdiction
over the three eparchies of Palestine, which are called
the three Palestines (Mansi 7, 179). ** [[Ibid. *
The Bishop of Jerusalem has primacy over "the
eparchies in Arabia, in Phoenicia..."]] As Patriarch,
the Bishop of Jerusalem occupied the fifth position
after Antioch (cf. 36th canon of the Ecumenical Synod
in Trullo), while after the schism of the Bishop of
Rome, Jerusalem occupies the fourth position. In this
case too, the boundaries and criteria of canonical
jurisdiction of territory, as defined by the 1st Ecumenical
Synod, are solely geographical.

The
Ecumenical Patriarch, the Archbishop of Constantinople-New
Rome, occupies the first position in the canonical
structure of the Orthodox Church. This position, as
well as the canonical jurisdiction territory have
been defined by the sacred canons of the Ecumenical
Synods*** [[3rd canon of the 2nd Ecumenical Synod,
28th canon of the 4th Ecumenical Synod, and 36th canon
of the Synod of Trullo.]], as well as by other ecclesiastical
constitutions and laws.

As
known, according to Orthodox Canon Law and Orthodox
ecclesiology, the sacred Synodical canons and the
decisions of the Ecumenical Synods may not be ignored
or transgressed by any person in the Orthodox Church,
no matter what high office that person may possess
as Patriarch, metropolitan, bishop or local synod,
much more so any secular authority for its own benefit.

As
far as concerns the primacy of honor of Constantinople,
the 2nd Ecumenical Synod (3rd canon), the 4th (28th
canon), and the Ecumenical Synod in Trullo (36th canon)
have legislated. Thus it is ecclesiastically legislated
with ecumenical validity and authority, that "the
Throne of Constantinople enjoys equal primacy with
the presbyter Throne of Rome also in ecclesiastical
matters, just as the former has been magnified in
affairs, being second to the latter..." (36th
canon of the Synod in Trullo). **** [[Cf. 131st Novel
of Justinian, in Ceremonies, Book 5, and title 3.]]
Following the schism of the Bishop of Rome, the Bishop
of Constantinople holds the primacy of honor and jurisdiction
in the Orthodox Church.

In
regard to the canonical jurisdiction and territory
of the Ecumenical Throne, the 4th Ecumenical Synod
validated, by law and decision (its 28th canon) with
ecumenical validity and authority, a long tradition
of the Church. The geographical extent of this eparchy
of the Ecumenical Patriarchate reaches the then administrations
of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace in the Roman Empire, as
well as the "barbarian" lands, namely those
lands which lie outside the boundaries of the Roman
Empire: " ... the Metropolitans alone of Pontian,
Asian, and Thracian administration, as well as the
bishops in the barbarian lands of the aforementioned
administrations should be ordained by the said Most
Holy Throne of Most Holy Church of Constantinople
... ."

The
adjective "barbarian" defines the noun "nations"
which is omitted in the text of this canon, but nevertheless
is understood ***** [[Zonaras on the above canon.]]
as being the barbarian nations or lands ; the eparchies
are, as already observed, those lying outside the
Roman Empire at the time of the 4th Ecumenical Synod
: " ... The Dioceses in the barbarian lands include
Alania (Albania perhaps ?), Russia, and others...."
****** [[Commentary of Balsamon on the 28th canon.]]

The
other barbarian lands, beyond Alania (Albania perhaps
?) and Russia, are in general the "barbarians"
in accordance with the interpretation of a Christian
in the 28th canon : "the [Bishops] of Pontus
and Thrace and Asia and the Barbarians, who are ordained
by Constantinople...."

From
the 8h century, all of the eparchies of the Illyricum,
which broke away from Rome, namely the geographical
area of the Balkans from Thrace to the Adriatic, were
placed under the canonical jurisdiction of Constantinople.

The
more recent lands and eparchies of North and South
America, Australia, the Far East etc., as well as
those in general which lie outside set geographical
boundaries of the local Churches in the sacred canons
and decisions of the Ecumenical Synods, as well as
the Patriarchal and Synodical Tomes are theoretically
included in the canonical terminology of the 4th Ecumenical
Synod and the other synods as being the "other"
barbarian lands. Not in an ethnological or modem cultural
sense of the term, but in a geographical sense, inasmuch
as they were not included in the geographical the
Ecumenical Patriarchate, through the Patriarchal and
Synodical Tomes and Acts, certain geographical areas,
particular Metropolitanates, archdioceses and dioceses
were conceded to the more recent autocephalous local
Churches, together with the autocephaly itself through
which these autocephalous Churches acquired canonical
administrative jurisdiction. Any exercise of spiritual
work and administration by these autocephalous Churches
among Orthodox who are outside and beyond their defined
geographical boundaries, on the basis of criteria
which are ethnophyletic and linguistic or "cultural",
constitutes an act "beyond boundaries" and
a "transgression" into a foreign eparchy,
contradicting, as known, fundamental principles of
the canonical teaching and tradition of the Church.

The
history of the spread of Christianity from Constantinople
to Greater and Lesser Russia (in the 10th century)
and its incorporation from the beginning within the
canonical jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
of Constantinople are well known.

According
to the "Gegonnian" Formulation, or Charter,
namely the catalogue of Metropolitanates, archdioceses
and dioceses that are subject "to the Patriarch
of Constantinople", commonly attributed to the
person of Leo the Wise but dating no less than to
the 11th century, the metropolis of Russia (Kiev)
occupies the 61st place *8 [[In Rallis-Potlis, Constitution,
vol. 5, p. 474. [[[*7 On the term "barbarian",
see Metropolitan Maximos of Sardis. The Ecumenical
Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church.]]] ]].

The
Metropolis of Kiev (Russia) under the Ecumenical Patriarchate
has geographical boundaries that cover Greater and
Lesser Russia, in accordance with canonical order,
so that the peoples dwelling in the area, without
any discrimination, may be served evangelically, administratively,
and pastorally. The historical developments and events
brought about changes in regard to the see of the
Metropolitanate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as
well as in its geographical boundaries, until the
political and ecclesiastical center was established
in Moscow by virtue of the imposition of the latter
upon the other hegemonies in the region which also
secured for Moscow the appointment to metropolis of
Russia.

In
the year 1459, on account also of the difficulties
in communication with Constantinople, following the
occupation of the latter by the Ottomans (1453), the
Metropolitan of Russia declared himself independent
of the Ecumenical Patriarch in terms of his election,
while the Metropolis itself was divided into two,
namely into the Metropolitanate of Moscow and the
Metropolitanate of Kiev.

In
the year 1588, Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople
traveled to Moscow and accepted to elevate the Metropolis
of Moscow to Patriarchate, being forced to ordain
(sic !) Metropolitan Job of Moscow to Patriarch on
the 26th January 1589.

A
local synod convened in Constantinople in the year
1590 under the Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah, and
reconvened in 1593, in order that, following the desire
of the Tsar, the Patriarch of Alexandria, Meletios
Pigas, may also attend. The Synod validated the establishment
of the Patriarchate of Moscow, which occupied the
5th position in the Diptychs, which it retains to
this day, namely after the Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

The
Patriarch of Moscow would be elected by the Archbishops
of the Patriarchate of Moscow. According to the Patriarchal
and Synodical Act of this Synod : "the throne
of the most pious and Orthodox city of Moscow both
is and is called Patriarchate on account of the fact
that this land was worthy of a kingdom by God, and
all Russia and the far northern parts should be subjected
to the Patriarchal throne of Moscow and all Russia,
while its place is after his beatitude the Bishop
of Jerusalem in the sacred diptychs as well as in
the ecclesiastical assemblies, so that we may preserve
inviolable the mentioned canons of the Holy Fathers
... being and recognized as the head of the Church
of Moscow and all Russia and the far Northern areas
in accordance with the 34th canon of the holy and
all-praised Apostles ..." *9 [[In Rallis-Potlis,
vol. 5, and p. 141.]]

Thus,
according to this founding Patriarchal and Synodical
Act about the Patriarchate of Moscow, validating what
occurred in Moscow (1589) by the Ecumenical Patriarch
Jeremiah II, the Patriarch of Moscow, fifth in line
in the Diptychs, after Jerusalem, has canonical jurisdiction
in Moscow, as its bishop, and as the first in all
Russia and the far northern parts within the Russian
dominion. The Patriarchate of Moscow, as the local
Church and in accordance with its official founding
ecclesiastical Acts, also has its canonical jurisdiction
with geographical boundaries and geographical restrictions,
according once again to the canonical teaching and
ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church.
Its canonical jurisdiction - "the territory"
- extends "to all Russia", namely as noted
also above, within the boundaries of the Russian dominion
and not beyond these.

Consequently,
even the "missionary territory" of the Patriarchate
of Moscow reaches within the boundaries of the Russian
dominion and not beyond these. After the storm of
a seventy-year imposition of an atheist state and
a persecution of the Church, it becomes a great and
imperative need to perform a ministry of mission and
re-evangelization of the peoples of the Russian dominion,
and especially to catechize the young people. Such
a ministry and activity on the part of the Patriarchate
of Moscow, within the canonical structures of the
Church, would render it most respectable and acceptable
throughout the world.

The
exercise by some of its members of a missionary ministry
outside the geographic boundaries of the canonical
jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Moscow is anticanonical.
It can be rendered canonical and ecclesiologically
acceptable only following invitation by the local
Church of persons missionaries from the Patriarchate
of Moscow, while their missionary work should certainly
be placed under the local canonical bishop whose name
alone they should commemorate during the divine services
and in whose name alone should they perform their
ministry, in order that this may be canonical, authentic,
and blameless. Otherwise, it will be a matter of interference
"beyond boundaries" and a "transgression"
into a foreign eparchy, which are explicitly disallowed
by the sacred canons and decisions of the Ecumenical
Synods. "No Bishop should dare to ordain outside
of his own boundaries in the cities or towns which
do not lie in his jurisdiction. If it is ascertained
that this has occurred, without the approval of those
responsible for those cities or towns, both he and
those he has ordained are to be defrocked." (35th
Apostolic Canon).
"No bishop should dare to move from one eparchy
to another, and to ordain persons in the Church for
the sake of ministerial promotion, nor should he take
others with him for this purpose, unless he arrives
at the written invitation of both the metropolitan
and the Bishops who are with him in the region through
which he is traveling. If, however, without invitation
he proceeds in disorderly fashion to the ordination
of any, and creates a situation in ecclesiastical
affairs that are not proper to him, then his acts
are considered invalid, while he is responsible for
his disorder and unreasonable actions for which he
deserves to be punished with defrocking by the holy
synod." (13th canon of the Synod of Antioch)
* 10 [[Cf. also the 6th and 150th canons of the 1st
Ecumenical Synod, and the commentary by Zonaras, Balsamon
and Aristenos. See the 8th canon of the 3rd Ecumenical
Synod and their commentary. Further, see the 13th
canon of the Synod of Antioch.]]

Therefore,
according to Orthodox canonical teaching and ecclesiology
: "Each of the Patriarchs should suffice in his
own privileges, and none of these should take by force
another eparchy which was not given from above and
from the beginning into his hands ; for this is the
arrogance of secular power...." *11 [[Commentary
by Aristenos on the 6th canon of the 1st Ecumenical
Synod. See also commentaries by Zonaras, Balsamon,
and Aristenos on the 8th canon of the 3rd Ecumenical
Synod.]]

The
cultural roots of a Russian Orthodox Christian who
has emigrated and lives within the geographical boundaries
of the canonical jurisdiction of the Patriarchate
of Moscow do not offer the right to the latter to
extend its canonical territory beyond and outside
its geographical boundaries by transgressing into
a foreign eparchy. Surely, using the cultural origins
of the orthodox all over the world is helpful in the
pastoral ministry. However, this must occur within
the canonical structures of the Church and with respect
toward the geographical canonical boundaries of each
of the orthodox eparchies, and not by "transgressing"
into the canonical territory of another Church.

The
application, nevertheless, of the canonical order
in the local Churches throughout the world, wherever
there live and work many Orthodox who originate in
different countries and who have different cultural
roots, does not mean uniformity in parishes by obliging
everyone to attend the Divine Liturgy, for example,
in only one language. The Greeks, for instance, or
the Serbs or the Romanians etc. who live and work
in Moscow may have a grecophone or Romanian-speaking
Church-community, but they must lie within the canonical
jurisdiction of the local bishop, namely of the Patriarchate
of Moscow. The Russians who live and work in Athens
have their own Church community where the Divine Liturgy
is celebrated in Slavonic. However, they are under
the canonical jurisdiction of the local bishop, namely
of the Archbishop of Athens. The same holds true for
the Churches in Alexandria, Damascus, and elsewhere.

As
far as concerns the matter of the autonomous Church
of Estonia, which is under the Ecumenical Patriarchate,
a matter referred to in the text being commented upon,
this is a particular issue with its own sorrowful
story.

The
Ecumenical Patriarchate granted to the Orthodox Church
of Estonia and autonomous ecclesiastical status through
the Patriarchal and Synodical Tome under the Ecumenical
Patriarch Meletios IV in the year 1923. This status
remained undisturbed and recognized by all until 1940.
Autonomy was requested by Estonian Church as well
as by the Estonian State itself through its President
and Government. As known, Estonia, like the other
Baltic nations and even Finland itself until the end
of World War 1 (1918), comprised a portion of the
Russian Empire. After this was, all these countries
become independent and consequently also requested
and ecclesiastical status of autonomy, for until then
they were ecclesiastically under the Patriarchate
of Moscow, since they were on Russian territory.

The
Baltic nations, during World War 2 and following the
attack of Germany on Russia, found themselves under
German occupation. After the defeat of Hitler's Germany,
Russia, as the Soviet Union, took over these nations
which it incorporated into its dominion forcibly,
namely without their consent.

This
unilateral and by arms forceful abolition of the independence
of Estonia in 1945, and its incorporation into the
then Soviet Union, resulted in a simultaneous abolition
(again forceful, namely without the agreement with
the canonical order, but unilaterally and without
the consent or even the knowledge of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate) also of the autonomy of the Orthodox
Church in Estonia which was turned into a mere Archdiocese
of the Patriarchate of Moscow. After this, the canonical
and rightful primate of the autonomous Church of Estonia,
Metropolitan Alexander, together with many (23) clergy
and thousands of orthodox faithful escaped to Sweden
where he died in 1953, while another 45 clergy were
murdered or displaced.

The
Ecumenical Patriarchate, "as the guardian of
canonical precision", did not accept these anticanonical
occurrences (namely, that which occurred "by
force and tyranny") and continued for a long
time to regard the autonomy of the Orthodox Church
in Estonia as existing, and recognized its then primate
as the canonical head of the refugee Orthodox Estonians
living in exile and who had formed the "Autonomous
Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church", as this
had unofficially been entitled from the year 1935.
The Ecumenical Patriarchate, responding in the year
1978 in fraternal, affectionate, and protective manner
to the persistent request of the Patriarchate of Moscow
through a Patriarchal and Synodical Act simply rendered
inactive the Patriarchal and Synodical Tome of 1923
on the basis of the argument that, owning to the political
change, the Church of Estonia could no longer have
any power except within the nation of Estonia which
lay within Soviet occupation, and not among the Estonians
of the Diaspora. The validity of this Tome was simply
suspended, without this being proclaimed invalid or
abolished.

In
the year 1991, following the dissolution of the Soviet
Union, Estonia was again restored to an independent
nation and sought to be restored to its autonomous
ecclesiastical status, which was abolished by the
State. It requested that the suspended Patriarchal
and Synodical Tome of 1923 might be reactivated, since
the Estonian Orthodox Apostolic Church, which had
lived in exile, had now returned to Estonia. The request
was formulated, and indeed in a persistent manner
both by the Estonian Republic, as well as by the overwhelming
majority of the Orthodox parishes in Estonia with
a categorical statement that, in the case of denial
by the Ecumenical Patriarchate to accept their request,
these parishes would in no way remain with the Patriarchate
of Moscow.

The
Ecumenical Patriarchate applied the relevant sacred
canons (9th and 17th of the 4th Ecumenical Synod)
accepted this common petition of the Estonian Orthodox
Church (56 out of 80 parishes), which it described
as "just", and fully restores (1996), namely
proclaimed active the Patriarchal and Synodical Tome
of the year 1923.

The
responsibility of all before the Orthodox Church and
before all people who look to it for spiritual guidance
in the way of salvation, demands unity of mind, fruitful
cooperation, and sincere Christian love, together
with respect for Canon Law and Orthodox Ecclesiology.
Political theories, foreign to the spirit of Christianity
and of Orthodoxy, such as ethnophyletism which, as
known, constitutes heresy (Synod of Constantinople
1872) do not serve the Church and the people of God,
but only political objectives and interests. There
is a vast territory and the needs today are immense
for a re-evangelization of the Russian people, and
especially of its youth, as well as of the intellectuals,
within the canonical geographical boundaries of the
Patriarchate of Moscow. The disposition of the few
spiritual forces and economic means toward a worldwide
expansive political vision does injustice to the pious
Russian people and wounds the unity of the Orthodox
Church.